The Forge Archives

First, I am sorry if this has already been beaten to death, I haven't spent too much time trolling through the posts.

I have read most of Ron's essays and while I think the notion of resolving conflict rather than actions is a good idea, I don't understand how it works in practice.

It seems as though some parts of a game will always need more in-depth resolution. That is, if I get to the end of a session and the Big Bad is waiting to kick my butt, I (pretty much regardless of GNS) would be let down if that dramatic conflict were reduced to the fickle fate of a single roll.

I'm sure there is something key here that just isn't making it through my thick skull. Can anyone clear this up for me? Any clever examples of play that illustrate how to make this work?

Thanks,

Hi Jay,

The trouble is that there are two variables to consider, not just one.

#1 is conflict vs. task resolution. The best way to think about this is ... let's see, one guy is chasing another guy. The chase-ee comes to a fence and wants to vault it as he runs.

What do the mechanics address? In many games, the issue is the jump per se - can or cannot this guy jump this fence, at this speed? Quick reference to various physical parameters, jumping skills, et cetera, to  set up the probabilities. The chase itself is put on hold for a minute while we focus on, think about, and carry out the jump, in terms of the character's capabilities. That's task resolution.

However, in conflict resolution, the chase is the thing. If we're gonna roll (for instance), it's going to resolve the chase, or some aspect of the chase per se. The fence and whatever relevant physical parameters for the character modify the chase, in favor of the pursuer, and are not considered as an isolated task. It might be a dice penalty to the chase-ee, or whatever, but when we swing the system into action, whatever rolls or energy-points or whatever are involved, we'll still be focused on the chase's outcome.

#2 is about scale. It's easy to get confused, because in the above example (and many similar examples), the jump exists inside the chase, so people get mixed up and think that conflicts must always be bigger than tasks. That's not the case at all.

Scale refers to how many or how much of the game-world events get covered by this particular resolution mechanic in action. The usual range is "scene resolution," for the biggest/most, to "single-action" for the smallest/least.

As I say, this is a completely independent variable from #1.

Examples:
Tunnels & Trolls combat: task resolution at the scene scale.
HeroQuest simple contest: conflict resolution at the scene scale
Cyberpunk: task resolution at the single-action scale
Sorcerer rolls in (say) combat: conflict resolution at the single-action scale

Does that help?

Best,
Ron

Well, one of the things to keep in mind is that what you would be missing is not the additional rolls.  What you'd be missing is all of the tactical fiddling that goes along with those rolls.

Conflict resolution mechanics are not simply task resolution mechanics moved to a larger scale (where you correctly note you'd lose the desireable level of resolution).  Conflict resolution mechanics must be structure so that all of the tactical fiddling is shifted to the roll itself.

Good examples of this would be Story Engine, Trollbabe, and Universalis where a whole bunch of ==stuff== goes on before the dice even hit the table.  Its at the level of this "stuff" where all of things you wouldn't want to miss out on occur.

Ron--
Thanks for the response. I understand both of your points, but I am still not entirely satisfied.

I just don't buy "conflict resolution at the single-action scale". I reread the combat section of Sorcerer and it sure seems to be action resolution to me.

Can you give an example of how an action in Sorcerer combat is resolved as a conflict?

Thanks,

Quote from: coxcombIt seems as though some parts of a game will always need more in-depth resolution. That is, if I get to the end of a session and the Big Bad is waiting to kick my butt, I (pretty much regardless of GNS) would be let down if that dramatic conflict were reduced to the fickle fate of a single roll.

Many are the ways to skin a cat!

I think focusing on dice rolls is the root of the problem. My guess is that what you realy want is a compelling narative of how you defeat the bad guy's minions, rescue the princess from the altar and trick the bad guy into falling into the pit of flames.

In a traditional RPG each one of these would be resolved by many dice rolls and the whole thing might take an entire evening to resolve. However the alternative isn't necesserily to just resolve everything with a single roll. In scene resolution a common approach is to break a complex case like this down into sub-scenes and resolve those seperately, perhaps with the results of on feeding a modifier into the next roll.

Even in a more streightforward duel you can still use the same technique for dramatic effect. One sub-scene might be the repartee before combat commences (repartee skill), followed by a dazzling sabre fight (melee combat), culminating in the villain revealing that ihe is in fact your father (passion/relationship contest).

Scene resolution is about adapting the game mechanics to suit your needs, rather than dictating a single fixed level of detail in the game mechanics.


Simon Hibbs

A distinction from film might help here (assuming I understand what's going on).  I'm going to use an example I like from The Princess Bride because most people seem to have seen it and it's such a clearly laid-out film.  It also rocks.

Remember when the Dread Pirate Roberts (actually the hero in disguise) has to climb up the cliff, then at the top fight Inigo Montoya, then run off and fight Andre the Giant (I forget the character name)?  Okay, working from large to small:

Sequence: This could be divided two ways.  First, you could take the whole thing from cliff to running off as one sequence.  Second, you could take the cliff part as one sequence and the fight with Inigo as a second.  I would tend to go with the former, since much of the cliff involves a running conversation with Inigo, who is really hoping that the hero gets to the top so they can have a swordfight.  Much backchat and banter happens here, all of which sets up the swordfight to come.

The next thing is the swordfight itself, which has lots of good banter, some crunch moments ("I am not left-handed," "I am not left-handed either," "I would rather cut my arm off than kill an artist like you," etc.), and a lot of great action.

An essential point is that if you take it all as one sequence, the cliff-climbing establishes a whole lot of things about both characters.  The hero is quite blase, chatty, undisturbed by the prospect of fighting Inigo.  Inigo is actually a decent guy, if a little scatterbrained, and really cares a lot about swordfighting.  Once they get to the swordfight, all this really comes to fruition; nothing particularly new is introduced about the characters, apart from the incidental fact that they are both right-handed.  The only new thing is that both are fantastic swordsmen, and frankly you expected that.

Scene: Break up the sequence into scenes, and you're there.  I would divide it into 4 scenes.  First, the cliff.  Second, the swordfight with the hero doing better, up until Inigo reveals that he is not left-handed.  Third, the swordfight with Inigo doing better, up until the hero reveals that he too is not left-handed.  Fourth, the resolution of the whole thing, in which the hero wins and refuses to kill Inigo; he knocks him out instead and runs off.

Structurally, then, a sequence is usually made up of scenes for exposition, dramatic tension, and climax or resolution.  Here there are two dramatic tension points, because of the hand-shifting.  The cliff is exposition -- it sets up the fight.  The hero winning, knocking out Inigo, and running off is climax -- you don't want to waste time on this because it's sort of a foregone conclusion from the moment that the hero shifts hands.  The fight is the dramatic tension -- it's the focus and the important part, and garners the most interest.

If you wanted to see this as straight RPG stuff, you could imagine resolving each scene mechanically with a single die-roll or equivalent, with the players filling in all the cool stuff that in effect explains each die-roll.

Action: Suppose you broke down each of those swordfight scenes into a whole bunch of smaller actions.  Attack, parry, attack, parry, trip, recover, attack, parry, etc.

The point here is that the traditional RPG focuses at the action level.  There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but if you think of the film the really interesting stuff doesn't happen here.  The interesting stuff happens at the scene level: who wins? why? who shifts hands?

You could do the same thing with big kung fu fights in classic Hong Kong films.  They have lots more scenes, of course, but the interesting stuff doesn't happen with every punch and kick; it's a kind of progression of larger blocks that are independently fun and interesting.  You get new weapons, new physical settings for the fight-stage, new styles for characters to switch to, new characters to fight.  Kentucky Fried Movie pillories this wonderfully by having the main kung fu guy fighting an opponent, and then the camera backs up to show a bunch of additional opponents waiting on line for their turns.

The advantage of the traditional action-based resolution is that you get lots of bang for your scene buck: each flash of the swords gets its own moment.  The disadvantage is that you tend to forget the forest for the trees.

The advantage of the scene-based resolution is that you get story and narrative flow.  The disadvantage is that you have to have the players fill in all those flashing blades through open description.

Hope this helps somewhat.

Chris Lehrich

Hi there,

Jay (coxcomb), you wrote,

QuoteI reread the combat section of Sorcerer and it sure seems to be action resolution to me.

Yup, the text in the main book represents me struggling out of task-resolution terminology and standard RPG texts. Sorcerer & Sword is much more explicit about resolving conflicts, and Sex & Sorcery even more so, using cute li'l diagrams.

(By the way, you keep saying "action" resolution for some reason; can we agree to use "task" for the sake of consistency? It's what I've always used.)

QuoteCan you give an example of how an action in Sorcerer combat is resolved as a conflict?

Here are a couple of threads which do the job, I think. Let me know:
But is it REALLY conflict resolution? and Eureka moment: combat and bonus dice for description

Best,
Ron

Thanks Chris. Excellent example! Actually, I totally get what you're talking about.

It's funny that you should use the Princess Bride example. I do stage combat choreography, and I use that fight to show new fighters that "kewl" choreography doesn't make a great fight. First we watch the swordfight normally, and everybody cheers and has a great time. Then I start it again, but with the sound turned off. Thing is, the fight sucks on a technical level. Without the actors skillfully delivering their lines, it falls flat.

I think a big problem with many RPGs is that they encourage combat with the sound off. The focus is on which maneuver you should choose for maximum mechanical impact and not on what you are trying to accomplish, or how your actions relate to who your character is. (Yes, I know, I clearly don't mesh with Gamist thinking, in which finding mechanical impact is often much of the point)

My difficulty here is not in understanding breaking sequences into chunks and resolving those chunks. That part is instinctual for me and I've been doing it in my games for years.

My difficulty comes from extending the term "conflict resolution" to a system that is clearly resolving at an task level. Take a look a Sorcerer (I really don't mean to pick on Sorcerer, or Ron. I love Sorcerer, and admire Ron. I use it as an example because it is a game that talks conflict resolution--and I have a copy to refer to) Anyway, in the all things except for combat and some sorcery, Sorcerer clearly presents rules for conflict resolution. The combat is framed in rounds (each of which is of ambiguous length but confined to approximately two seconds of activity). During each round everybody states an action. Dice are rolled to determine the outcome of each action. Clearly task resolution.

So it would seem that Sorcerer (along with many other games) is actually a mix of conflict resolution (with variable scaling) for general actions and task resolution for combat. What Sorcerer does that a traditional task resolution system (e.g. D&D) doesn't do, is mechanically encourage playing with the sound on. That is, instead of encouraging careful selection of static advantages (feats, maneuvers, etc.), Sorcerer has dynamic advantages in the form of bonuses for creative description, clever tactics and so on. The bonuses you get for a roll are not described on your sheet, they are dictated by your ability to add appropriate desription to the scene. Success depends more on character and player investment and context than on character engineering.

I think many people confuse "task resolution" with playing with the sound off (sorry, this metaphor is really working for me this morning).

Am I making sense?

Hi Jay,

The way I see it, Sorcerer (and I accept that it's just an example, not "against" it or me) is based on conflict resolution that in addition provides some structure for describing the tasks within it.

Dust Devils, for instance, provides some structure for the tasks within the conflicts it resolves, but not quite as much as Sorcerer (i.e., open to more interpretation). And The Pool provides none at all, just says "goal fails" or "goal succeeds" and leaves narration of anything within that up to the designated person.

I think all of these are a lot different from task resolution alone, even when each action is accompanied by lots of descriptive color. Playing Feng Shui is a lot like that, in my experience. Conflicts are only resolved in Feng Shui, if at all, through the accumulation of many separately-resolved tasks through many "shots." Each shot has a lot of flash and narration associated with it, but that doesn't change the esssential structure of resolution.

Best,
Ron

Not to do a pure "me too" post or anything, but the "swordfight with the sound off" thing seems to me an amazingly good analogy.  If y'all don't mind, I'm going to steal it for explaining this same issue in my own current game design.  Nails and heads have been hit!

Actually, come to think of it, I went to a screening of the Errol Flynn Robin Hood and the sound on one reel was incredibly screwed up; it sounded like the movie was underwater.  When it came to the big fight scene up and down the stairs with Basil Rathbone, the screeners came out, apologized, and asked us if we'd rather see it with the sound off or screwed up.  We asked for "sound off," and believe me, it was a pretty mediocre experience at best.  A little better than it might have been, since we'd actually asked for the sound off, but still mediocre.

Chris Lehrich

That makes sense, Ron. I still don't quite agree with the terminology, but I think we're down to semantics, so I'll stop arguing. ;-)

Thanks,

Steal away Chris! I'm actually rather pleased with myself about the analogy. Every time I play D20 (with my predominantly Gamist group) I feel like the sound is off.

Attack, Feat, Repeat. Ugh! Works for some, but not for me. :(

Cheers,

A reply to Chris and Jay --

First of all, my Threefold-Simulationist side feels compelled to point out the obvious caveat: that "The Princess Bride" is not an RPG, and what works for a film may or may not work for an RPG.  It's worth talking about, but one should keep that in mind.  

Quote from: clehrichThe point here is that the traditional RPG focuses at the action level.  There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but if you think of the film the really interesting stuff doesn't happen here.  The interesting stuff happens at the scene level: who wins? why? who shifts hands?

You could do the same thing with big kung fu fights in classic Hong Kong films.  They have lots more scenes, of course, but the interesting stuff doesn't happen with every punch and kick; it's a kind of progression of larger blocks that are independently fun and interesting.  

I think that depends on what you find interesting.  Sure, if you rip each individual action out of its context, then its not interesting -- but that doesn't mean that the actions themselves aren't interesting within their context.  

Jay's point about "watching with the sound off" resonates with me.  At this point, my favorite dramatic combat system is still Champions -- and that's because of the personal aspect, i.e. how fighting can express character.  What I enjoy about action/task-based resolution is how it focuses on the moment-to-moment choices of the characters and what they are feeling.  In a good fight, PCs are constantly reassessing their goals with decisions like how far they will go, who they are defending, and so forth.  This translates into different action choices.  

For me, at least, conflict resolution in games like HeroQuest or Everway hasn't had that quality.  I'm not saying that it's not possible, but it hasn't been straightforward how to get that feeling of moment-to-moment choice.

Editted to add:  I own Sorcerer but I haven't played it, so I can't really comment on discussion of that part.

Quote from: John KimI think that depends on what you find interesting.  Sure, if you rip each individual action out of its context, then its not interesting -- but that doesn't mean that the actions themselves aren't interesting within their context.

Yes, exactly.  If the game is of the sort where the moment-to-moment stuff is fascinating, you should go down to what I guess Ron calls the "task" level.  I was just trying to clarify notionally what a "scene"-level division would amount to.

I think this is the great thing about "sound off" as an analogy.  In some classic kung-fu films, where actually the second-to-second stuff is very cool, "sound off" sucks because you lose the flavor and effect of every hit.  In Princess Bride, you lose all the banter that makes a more scene-level thing cool.  Both can be wonderful, but either way without the sound it's mediocre.

Chris Lehrich

To be clear: I do not intend any value judgements about style of play. I know lots of folks who think the character engineering of a game like D&D (what feats and class abilities work well together to do what I want) is great. It seems to work for Gamist and some Simulationist play styles quite well.

I was trying to differentiate this style of resolution from that used in Sorcerer combat, where the tactics and strategy come more from adding to the narrative than from setting up your pre-planned perfect combo.

Of course there is lots of middle ground here too. As a long time Chamions/Hero player, I hear what John is saying about its style of task resolution. If you want to get your tactical groove on in character context, you can't get much better. But Hero does fall between the extremes. Even though there are specific maneuvers, the system encourages flavorful description, and having strong metamechanics enables the GM to roll with the unusual tasks without fudging the system too much.